[Pants-of-dog]

I already addressed this.

Logic is the basis of verifying propositions. If you are too cowardly to challenge my argument, then so be it.

Your dismissals have been noted.

Neither were your original arguments. Glad we agree.

This post seems devoid of arguments.

And I find amusing that you call me cowardly when you refuse to address my argument in the California shooting thread.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. It looks incredibly boring.

My point was that fiction cannot be empirically verified like scientific studies and news articles.

I do not have to discuss the Abrahamic god in order to make this point.

[One Degree]

No. It looks incredibly boring.

My point was that fiction cannot be empirically verified like scientific studies and news articles.

I do not have to discuss the Abrahamic god in order to make this point.

Interesting. So no one ever empirically refutes science and news? There are never two logical arguments?

[Pants-of-dog]

Nice deflection.

Me looking at your latest post:

You are not addressing my point.

For a person who claims to be good at debate, you tend to avoid it a lot.

——————————

@One Degree

Yes, people can that and they do that. They cannot do that with a work of fiction.

Thank you for repeating my point back at me.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You are not addressing my point.

For a person who claims to be good at debate, you tend to avoid it a lot.

I challenged you to debate based on your disparging remarks against the Holy Scriptures, you have refused out of fear. I critiqued your claims that different types of literature are different when it comes to relative interpretation, especially when authorial intent is explicitly stated.

Starship Troopers is not about fascism, you were wrong and your arguments are ad reductio.

Your remarks about the True Faith are wrong, and you are afraid to debate them.

Your remarks about a different thread were red-herrings.

Quit Embarrassing yourself.

You are not helping the already low opinion with which people hold you on Pofo.

[One Degree]

You are not addressing my point.

For a person who claims to be good at debate, you tend to avoid it a lot.

——————————

@One Degree

Yes, people can that and they do that. They cannot do that with a work of fiction.

Thank you for repeating my point back at me.

Why not? Logic is logic. You state a position and provide your evidence.

[Pants-of-dog]

I challenged you to debate based on your disparging remarks against the Holy Scriptures, you have refused out of fear.

If you want to believe I am scared, feel free.

That will not make your boring immaterialism thread more interesting, or make me more likely to listen to you and do what you ask.

I critiqued your claims that different types of literature are different when it comes to relative interpretation, especially when authorial intent is explicitly stated.

No, you just made some off the cuff remark about how works of fiction are just as objectively interpretable as gun statistics.

I then pointed out that works of fiction are qualitatively different from non-fiction in terms of verifiability of the things like the authors intent. And Starship Troopers is one of the most debated books in terms of what it is really about and Heinlein’s intent.

You also made some claim about what Heinlein said about his work. If we look back at the bolded text from the wiki article you quoted, they all seem consistent with my claim that the book was a satire of fascism and other forms of militant authoritarianism. As far as I know, Heinlein never explicitly said what the book was about.

Did you think I was saying that the book advocated fascism? Because I never said that.

Starship Troopers is not about fascism, you were wrong and your arguments are ad reductio.

Again, interpretations of fiction cannot be objectively correct or incorrect.

Your remarks about the True Faith are wrong, and you are afraid to debate them.

Your remarks about a different thread were red-herrings.

Quit Embarrassing yourself.

You are not helping the already low opinion with which people hold you on Pofo.

And we are now back to the personal attacks.

And again, you tend to fall into doing this instead of actually debating.

If you are as good at debate as you claim to be, show us, and stop with these irrelevant little attempts at insults.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you want to believe I am scared, feel free.

I will in the absence of contrary evidence.

That will not make your boring immaterialism thread more interesting, or make me more likely to listen to you and do what you ask.

Your level of amusement is not the grounds for measuring validity, logic is.

So, from this point on, when you decide to shit on the One True God and the Holy Scriptures as you are apt to do, I will refer you publicly to my proof that you have failed to address or challenge.

No, you just made some off the cuff remark about how works of fiction are just as objectively interpretable as gun statistics.

Caricature. I was responding to your stupid remark that there is no way to interpret literature in an objective manner whatsoever, which is false.

I then pointed out that works of fiction are qualitatively different from non-fiction in terms of verifiability of the things like the authors intent. And Starship Troopers is one of the most debated books in terms of what it is really about and Heinlein’s intent.

People are debating flat earth, that doesn't mean that its automatically a credible position to take, even if its increasingly popular and debated.

I don't care if Heinlein's book is hotly debated, its not a satire about fascism, you and anyone who thinks so are objectively incorrect. Heinlein himself explained that the book describes his political philosophy (which is not fascism, but meritocratic liberalism, LIKE IN THE BOOK), and even explained the militarist elements of the book in terms of that same framework. I quoted and sourced these sections in this very thread.

After which, you start whining like a sore-loser about how you don't care because its just a stupid kids book.

Grow the fuck up.

Again, interpretations of fiction cannot be objectively correct or incorrect.

So we can't know if Harry Potter is about wizards?

Dont' be dumb.

If J.K. Rowling says the book is about wizards, its about wizards.

Done.

And we are now back to the personal attacks.

And again, you tend to fall into doing this instead of actually debating.

If you are as good at debate as you claim to be, show us, and stop with these irrelevant little attempts at insults.

If you are so good at debating, quit engaging in fallacious reasoning.

Then maybe i'll listen to your suggestions and we can call it even.

[Pants-of-dog]

I will in the absence of contrary evidence.

If you think refusing to address arguments in other threads is a sign of cowardice, then why do you refuse to address arguments in other threads?

Your level of amusement is not the grounds for measuring validity, logic is.

So, from this point on, when you decided to shit on the One True God and the Holy Scriptures, I will refer you publicly my proof that you have failed to address or challenge.

I never claimed my level of amusement was a critieria for validity. It is a reason why I am not going to discuss your boring thread.

Since God is infinite, He is omnipresent.

This means He was in the toilet when I defecated this morning. I literally shat on your “One True God”.

Caricature. I was responding to your stupid remark that there is no way to interpret literature in an objective manner whatsoever, which is false.

You actually said that it was like lookingnat gun statistics. If it is a caricature, then you successfully satirised yourself.

People are debating flat earth, that doesn't mean that its automatically a credible position to take, even if its increasingly popular and debated.

I remember when your wife got mad at me when I said almost the same thing.

I don't care if Heinlein's book is debated, its not a satire about fascism. Heinlein himself explained that the book describes his political philosophy, and even explained the militarist elements of it. I quoted and sourced these sections in this very thread.

After which, you start whining like a sore-loser about how you don't care because its just a stupid kids book.

The Heinlein quotes you quoted do not contradict my claim. Please go back and reread them.

Grow the f... up.

...says the person who gets mad and cannot stop swearing when ever someone disagrees with him.

So we can't know if Harry Potter is about wizards?

...

If J.K. Rowlings say the book is about wizards, its about wizards.

Since Heinlein never said it was a book supporting fascism or military authoritarian governments, it makes no sense tp use this comparison as evidence that ST is about that.

If you are so good at debating, quit engaging in fallacious reasoning.

Then maybe i'll listen to your suggestions and call it even.

Since you were not able to expalin how I engaged in fallacious reasoning, this can be ignored.

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you think refusing to address arguments in other threads is a sign of cowardice, then why do you refuse to address arguments in other threads?

Because you used that thread as a deflective red-herring, and likewise, its not like you were challenging me to address a point made by you here that was better expressed there (which is what I did); rather, you asked me to comment in a thread that I STARTED that I had ceased to comment in altogether against anyone (not simply you).

YOU attacked the One True God, and I am taking you up on your provocation with a formal challenge. Its an in context challenge, not a red-herring, and not a deflection.

I never claimed my level of amusement was a critieria for validity. It is a reason why I am not going to discuss your boring thread.

So we agree that you have not challenge the truth of my claims? Good.

Since God is infinite, He is omnipresent.

This means He was in the toilet when I defecated this morning. I literally shat on your “One True God”.

Not an argument and based on an infantile understanding of Metaphysics.

Not surprising really.

I am sure your devout catholic latin ladies that taught you marxism would be SOOOO impressed with your blasphemy.

I am glad that my use of the "One True God" has triggered you though. Delicious.

You actually said that it was like lookingnat gun statistics. If it is a caricature, then you successfully satirised yourself.

It was a counter example; where I used your argument against objectivity in writing against other forms of writing.

I remember when your wife got mad at me when I said almost the same thing.

Not relevant.

The Heinlein quotes you quoted do not contradict my claim. Please go back and reread them.

I did, and they do.

Here is a syllogism for you.

P1- The-Government-In-Starship-Trooper is Heinlein's-Idealology-Having. (Heinlein's Claim).

P2- Heinlein's-Idealogy-Having IS NOT Fascism-Having.

C- The-Government-In-Starship-Troopers IS NOT Fascism-Having.

Further, as evidenced EXTENSIVELY in the Sargon video, the arguments given by the teachers of that society in the class-room speeches contained in the book, are NOT fascist in their political ideology and are very specific and explicit in their meritocratic liberalism.

Since Heinlein never said it was a book supporting fascism or military authoritarian governments, it makes no sense tp use this comparison as evidence that ST is about that.

I didn't claim that, I claimed that your argument that the government is SS is fascist was wrong, because it is.

This is because of the author's claims and clear evidence from the text.

Kinda like how casting spells and calling yourself as wizard in Harry Potter is clear evidence from the text that they are supposed to be wizards.

But according to you, we can't really know if harry potter was supposed to be a wizard.

You do know how retarded that sounds right?

Since you were not able to expalin how I engaged in fallacious reasoning, this can be ignored.

You bringing up another thread was a red-herring, which is a fallacy. I explained this several times actually.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because you used that thread as a deflective red-herring, and likewise, its not like you were challenging me to address a point made by you here that was better expressed there (which is what I did); rather, you asked me to comment in a thread that I STARTED that I had ceased to comment in altogether against anyone (not simply you).

So, this whole God thread thing is a red herring? Okay.

YOU attacked the One True God, and I am taking you up on your provocation with a formal challenge. Its an in context challenge, not a red-herring, and not a deflection.

No, I defecated on Him, or more correctly, I defecated as normal, and your beliefs placed Him in the toilet.

So we agree that you have not challenge the truth of my claims? Good.

Yes, we agree that I have not challenged your boring thread.

Not an argument and based on an infantile understanding of Metaphysics.

Not surprising really.

I am sure your devout catholic latin ladies that taught you marxism would be SOOOO impressed with your blasphemy.

I am glad that my use of the "One True God" has triggered you though. Delicious.

So God is not infinite? Cool.

I believe in an infinite god. And I long ago realised it means She is in the toilet when I defecate. And She is the defecation, and She is me defecating.

And She does not care that I talk about defecating on her. She is not that petty.

It was a counter example; where I used your argument against objectivity in writing against other forms of writing.

As long as we agree that gun stats and works of fiction are qualitatively different when it comes to objective analysis of the information being conveyed.

Not relevant.

But amusing!

I did, and they do.

Here is a syllogism for you.

P1- The-Government-In-Starship-Trooper is Heinlein's-Idealology-Having. (Heinlein's Claim).

P2- Heinlein's-Idealogy-Having IS NOT Fascism-Having.

C- The-Government-In-Starship-Troopers IS NOT Fascism-Having.

Further, as evidenced EXTENSIVELY in the Sargon video, the arguments given by the teachers of that society in the class-room speeches contained in the book, are NOT fascist in their political ideology and are very specific and explicit in their meritocratic liberalism.

I never claimed they were fascist. This is the second time I say this to you.

I am beginning to think this whole thing is a misunderstanding on your part.

I didn't claim that, I claimed that your argument that the government is SS is fascist was wrong, because it is.

This is because of the author's claims and clear evidence from the text.

Kinda like how casting spells and calling yourself as wizard in Harry Potter is clear evidence from the text that they are supposed to be wizards.

But according to you, we can't really know if harry potter was supposed to be a wizard.

You do know how retarded that sounds right?

I never claimed they were fascist. This is the third time I say this to you.

I am beginning to think this whole thing is a misunderstanding on your part.

You bringing up another thread was a red-herring, which is a fallacy. I explained this several times actually.

It is only a red herring if I am using it to distract.

I am not trying to distract or deflect. It was more of a spotlight in your refusal to admit your errors or actualy debate your claim.

[Victoribus Spolia]

So, this whole God thread thing is a red herring? Okay.

Nope. But the one you did was.

Glad we got that cleared up.

No, I defecated on Him, or more correctly, I defecated as normal, and your beliefs placed Him in the toilet.

Not an argument, Strawman.

Yes, we agree that I have not challenged your boring thread.

Glad we agree you have refused to challenge my argument in that thread.

So God is not infinite? Cool.

Please quote the place where I said this.

Thanks.

If you want to know the reality of the True God, please consult the proof in the link I provided.

Thanks.

I believe in an infinite god. And I long ago realised it means She is in the toilet when I defecate. And She is the defecation, and She is me defecating.

And She does not care that I talk about defecating on her. She is not that petty.

Your feelings about your mock-religion are not an argument.

I never claimed they were fascist. This is the third time I say this to you.

I am beginning to think this whole thing is a misunderstanding on your part.

What is this supposed to mean then, explain yourself:

I think the book was also a satire of fascism and other military authoritarian societies. This is most clearly seen in the repeated comparison between the troopers and the insect aliens.

Who are the fascists being satirized in this claim of yours?

It is only a red herring if I am using it to distract.

I am not trying to distract or deflect. It was more of a spotlight in your refusal to admit your errors or actualy debate your claim.

Which had nothing to do with our conversation and was brought up in the midst of a debate about SS. That qualifies it as a red-herring.

I don't need to read you mind to assign motive in order for a red-herring to obtain. The context of your use was pretty obvious.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nope. But the one you did was.

Glad we got that cleared up.

No.

Not an argument, Strawman.

If you think God is infinite, then He is in my toilet.

Glad we agree you have refused to challenge my argument in that thread.

Yes, because it is boring.

Please quote the place where I said this.

Thanks.

If you want to know the reality of the True God, please consult the proof in the link I provided.

Thanks.

If you think He was not in the toilet, then you think He is not infinite.

I guess it is possible that you believe He is in the toilet, and I misunderstood your emotional reaction as a denial.

Your feelings about your mock-religion are not an argument.

You seem really invested in the idea that I am not a theist. This os not the first time you make this erroneous claim about me.

Regardless, if you be,ieve in an infinite god, as I do, then you believe Hod is in the toilet when I defecate.

What is this supposed to mean then, explain yourself:



Who are the fascists being satirized in this claim of yours?

The real fascists and authoritarians whi are represented in the book by the bugs.

And I also think Heinlein wrote it so that as the book progresses, the tropppers become more buglike and therefore more like the authoritarians they were originally trying to destroy.

You really should have asked this earlier instead of beating that strawman over and over again.

Which had nothing to do with our conversation and was brought up in the midst of a debate about SS. That qualifies it as a red-herring.

I don't need to read you mind to assign motive in order for a red-herring to obtain. The context of your use was pretty obvious.

Sure. Whatever.

So can we assume that you are giving up in the California shooting thread?

[Victoribus Spolia]

No.

Yes.

If you think God is infinite, then He is in my toilet.

Thats not your entire quote though, you inferred from this claim to be shitting on God.

That is a non-sequitur because of your ignorance of metaphysical categories.

My proof addresses this as well.

Yes, because it is boring.

Yes, because of your feelings, you have failed to address the validity of my claims, thus your arguments regarding God are dismissed until you address those claims.

If you think He was not in the toilet, then you think He is not infinite.

This is not evidence of a claim made by me. This is a false inference YOU made about something I never said.

I guess it is possible that you believe He is in the toilet, and I misunderstood your emotional reaction as a denial.

You misunderstand much, but since you cowardly refuse to accept my challenge and read my argument, that is predictable.

This os not the first time you make this erroneous claim about me.

Regardless, if you be,ieve in an infinite god, as I do, then you believe Hod is in the toilet when I defecate.

The real fascists and authoritarians whi are represented in the book by the bugs.

And I also think Heinlein wrote it so that as the book progresses, the tropppers become more buglike and therefore more like the authoritarians they were originally trying to destroy.

You really should have asked this earlier instead of beating that strawman over and over again.

Fair Enough.

Sure. Whatever.

So can we assume that you are giving up in the California shooting thread?

I do not intend to post in that thread again. It was a DOA shitpost to begin with.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes.

No.

Thats not your entire quote though, you inferred from this claim to be shitting on God.

That is a non-sequitur because of your ignorance of metaphysical categories.

My proof addresses this as well.

This seems like word salad rather than a rebuttal.

“I really did disprove this somewhere else! Trust me!”.

If God is infinite, the He has to be in the toilet. Simple logic.

If you think I am ignorant of metaphysical categories, explain how.

Yes, because of your feelings, you have failed to address the validity of my claims, thus your arguments regarding God are dismissed until you address those claims.

This sounds like an excuse not to debate.

This is not evidence of a claim made by me. This is a false inference YOU made about something I never said.

Okay. Maybe you do not believe in an infinite God.

Most likely, you accept the traditional Christian view of a transcendental god as opposed to an immanent one, and thus God (the Father, if we are discussing the Trinity) is infinite and transcendant (lol, trans) and so He is not in my toilet.

But then God is not infinite. He is limited to the transcendental realm.

You misunderstand much, but since you cowardly refuse to accept my challenge and read my argument, that is predictable.

...says the dude who refuses to debate in this thread or in the one he started.

As long as we agree that you were wrong when you assumed I was an atheist.

And we agree that God is either infinte and in my toilet, or god is not in my toulet and finite.

Fair Enough.

These themes are actually explored more in the (low budget and not very good) sequels.

I do not intend to post in that thread again. It was a DOA shitpost to begin with.

Your OP was a “DOA shitpost”?

[Victoribus Spolia]

If you think I am ignorant of metaphysical categories, explain how.

Sure.

Presence ≠ Identity.

Otherwise, you would reject theism and be a pantheist.

The doctrine of Omniprescene is that God is everywhere (or perhaps even all "In Him") Not that everything IS God.

Hence, God can be present in the toilet without you shitting on Him because His substance is not the same as that of that of the toilet.

This sounds like an excuse not to debate.

I see no reason to debate you when you have refused to debate me, especially when I have already given a proof that presents my position in exact terms.

I don't like wasting my time.

Most likely, you accept the traditional Christian view of a transcendental god as opposed to an immanent one, and thus God (the Father, if we are discussing the Trinity) is infinite and transcendant (lol, trans) and so He is not in my toilet.

But then God is not infinite. He is limited to the transcendental realm.

I think you mean "transcendent" realm, as "transcendental" means providing the preconditions of intelligibility.

There is a balance between transcendence and immanence in Christian orthodoxy. The notions are not mutually exclusive.

I actually deal with this in my proof as well.

...says the dude who refuses to debate in this thread or in the one he started.

I never refused to debate, I challenged you to debate my proof where I easily handle all your juvenile objections.

I already explained the problems with your red-herrings ad nauseam.

And we agree that God is either infinte and in my toilet, or god is not in my toulet and finite.

I addressed this above, and in my argument.

As long as we agree that you were wrong when you assumed I was an atheist.

Kinda like when you've assumed that I am not really an Ancap?

Your OP was a “DOA shitpost”?

It was a shit-post, that was DOA (in my opinion).

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure.

Presence ≠ Identity.

Otherwise, you would reject theism and be a pantheist.

The doctrine of Omniprescene is that God is everywhere (or perhaps even all "In Him") Not that everything IS God.

Hence, God can be present in the toilet without you shitting on Him because His substance is not the same as that of that of the toilet.

I addressed this above, and in my argument.

So, God ends where substance begins. Thus, not infinite.

I see no reason to debate you when you have refused to debate me, especially when I have already given a proof that presents my position in exact terms.

I don't like wasting my time.

This sounds like an excuse not to debate.

I think you mean "transcendent" realm as "transcendental" means providing the preconditions of intelligibility.

There is a balance between transcendence and immanence in Christian orthodoxy. The notions are not mutually exclusive.

I actually deal with this in my proof as well.

If God is limited to the transcendent realm, He is not infinite.

I never refused to debate, I challenged you to debate my proof where I easily handle all your juvenile objections.

I already explained the problems with your red-herrings ad nauseam.

Then address my point about God being finite.

Kinda like when you've assumed that I am not really an Ancap?

If you are drawing the comparison between that claim and your claim that I am an atheist, you are implicitly agreeing that your claim was incorrect.

It was a shit-post, that was DOA (in my opinion).

Exactly which post was that?

[Victoribus Spolia]

So, God ends where substance begins. Thus, not infinite.

That is not what I said, nor does this make any sense; showing that you are still confusing identity with presence and have no idea what substance means.

You are really out of your league here.

I think you know that though, which is why you won't debate my argument.

This sounds like an excuse not to debate.

Thats because of a lack of reading comprehension no doubt.

You are the one refusing to debate.

If God is limited to the transcendent realm, He is not infinite.

That is your position and claim, not mine.

This whole "transcendent realm" silliness is your own invention.

Then address my point about God being finite.

I did, but I can re-post my proof if you'd like. Is that what you really want Pants?

If you are drawing the comparison between that claim and your claim that I am an atheist, you are implicitly agreeing that your claim was incorrect.

Only if you are now implicitly admitting you were incorrect in your claim that I was not a real Ancap.

Exactly which post was that?

The OP.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is not what I said, nor does this make any sense; showing that you are still confusing identity with presence and have no idea what substance means.

You are really out of your league here.

I think you know that though, which is why you won't debate my argument.

Thats because of a lack of reading comprehension no doubt.

You are the one refusing to debate.

Instead of relying on attacking me, your argument would be stronger if you explained how identity and presence disprove my claim.

That is your position and claim, not mine.

Yes, exactly.

This whole "transcendent realm" silliness is your own invention.

If God is present everywhere, He is in the toilet. And in a transcendent fashion, He is in my toilet. But since God is separate from His creation, he is not actually my toilet.

But the fact that God is separate from His creation is itself a boundary, and thus, God is not infinite.

He is the toilet on a transcendent level, but since He is not there also on an immanent level, God is finite in that He does not extend into His creation.

I did, but I can re-post my proof if you'd like. Is that what you really want Pants?

If you want. That seems like it woukd be easiest for you.

Only if you are now implicitly admitting you were incorrect in your claim that I was not a real Ancap.

Nope. My point is true based solely on your belief that I am wrong about it. It means that you also believe you are wrong about my atheism.

The OP.

This seems like a concession.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Instead of relying on attacking me, your argument would be stronger if you explained how identity and presence disprove my claim.

Its handled in my argument, the one you refused to debate.

Yes, exactly.

I don't hold to your position, so you are debating yourself, not me.

If God is present everywhere, He is in the toilet. And in a transcendent fashion, He is in my toilet.

Correct.

But since God is separate from His creation, he is not actually my toilet.

False. He can be a non-toilet and still be present in your toilet. Identity is not Presence.

Omnipresence is that God is all present, not that ALL things are God.

Your are confused with your terms.

But the fact that God is separate from His creation is itself a boundary, and thus, God is not infinite.

That would only be the case if the creation and the Creator were regarded as of being either the same substance, or of substances that were different and being spatially exclusive of one another (not being able to share the same space without mixture).

Neither are true.

He is the toilet on a transcendent level, but since He is not there also on an immanent level, God is finite in that He does not extend into His creation.

If the substances are different, but not spatially exclusive, such can occupy the same space without identity, hence presence without identity.

Your argument rests on a false-dilemma.

My point is true based solely on your belief that I am wrong about it. It means that you also believe you are wrong about my atheism.

How so?

This seems like a concession.

What it seems to you does not necessarily imply what it is.

If you want. That seems like it would be easiest for you.

As you wish.

Definitions.

Not all definitions in a debate as broad and as ambitious as this could possibly be laid out before hand; however, several key definitions must be made clear.

Phenomenal Idealism (Immaterialism): negatively, the denial of matter and a physical reality, positively, the claim that the only thing that exists is the mental, or, to put it better, all that which exists is either a mind or mental content, esse est percepii aut percepere.

Physicalism (Materialism): negatively, the denial of any entity or cause that is not physically reducible as being existent. Positively, the assertion that the only things which exist are fundamentally physical or material in nature.

Causation: a necessary condition or relation, comprehending the notion of ultimate origination as well. Delineated according to antecedent or contemporaneous causes primarily.

Percept: an object of perception/experience (e.g. table), a bundle of sensations. Synonyms: Phenomena (sng/plur.), Physical object.

Matter: Neither a mind, nor mental content (exclusively), mind-independent by nature and definition. This term is that which is comprehended as the constituent aspect of reality in physicalism or materialism and is typically also understood as being philosophically basic, metaphysically fundamental, and timeless in some sense.

Sensations: A qualitative state; e.g. “redness” “hardness” “stinkiness,” “loudness,” “sweetness.” Et al. comprehending both primary and secondary qualities. (synonyms: qualia)

Consciousness (mind): an awareness, that which has percepts or mental content (thought). Higher and lower levels of such are acknowledged, the lower being in regards to direct perception and sensation with the latter (higher) levels refer to complex and abstract thought.

Transcendental: Providing the preconditions of intelligibility.

Omnipotence: A State of Being Dependent on Nothing Outside of Oneself [however, as to preclude any notion of an inert or isolated being it shall be added:] With All Beings, All Reality, and All Actions Outside Of The One Holding This State Being Likewise Dependent For Their Continued and Actual Existence Upon The Express, Active, and Willful Determination of The One Having This State. [ By way of clarification, If it is further acknowledged here, that this definition may possibly be at variance with some common constructions of this term; however, this qualification notwithstanding, the definition is affirmed as being consistent with an orthodox school of thought within the broader catholic and reformation Christian theological traditions]

Omniscience: The State of Being the Active and Willful Source of All Mental Content, Knowledge, and Therefore Of All True Propositions [and so as to preclude any possibility of random and unknowing cognitive origination, it shall be added] With Said Origination Being Had By The One Holding This State With Full Awareness of Said Knowledge, Mental Content, and True Propositions.

Omnipresence: A State Of Being Spatially Unbound (Not Subject To Spatio-Temporal Restrictions).

Self-Satisfaction: A Thought Of Oneself From Which One Achieves Fulfillment and From Which Pleasure is Derived. The Affection of Satisfaction Itself May Also Be Called [A Type Of] Love If Such A State of Affection, and The Object of It, Is Equal-to-or-Exceeds The Value That One Would Place on Their Own Life or Existence.

Idea: an object of thought (may also be referred to as such), distinct from the one thinking it.

Pure Self: the true subject, independent of any object of thought.

On God and What Is Meant By Trinitarian; what is meant by these terms is limited to what is expressed in the Creedal formulation given in the link at the bottom of the post. Nothing shall be added to this.

https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/c ... cene-creed

See also the Athanasian Creed.

The Proof.

THE EXISTENCE OF THE MENTAL AS METAPHYSICALLY IRREDUCIBLE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PHENOMENAL IDEALISM AND TRINITARIAN THEISM.

The argument is broken into four sections that are overlapping, that is, the latter enumerated sections rely upon the ones previously established, This shall be a compounded case, the establishment of #2 being the main point of the debate, which if accomplished, is a guarantee of the pre-agreed to terms as to what would constitute a victory. Everything following number 2, is not the main substance of the debate, but shall be defended nonetheless by request of my opponent.

Here now is the argument:

1. THE AXIOM OF HUMAN MENTALITY:

Claim: Human Mentality is Axiomatic.

Since my primary objective in this debate is to establish the existence of the mental as non-physical (not physically reducible), and since I cannot stop merely there, but also wish to establish the mental as the ONLY reality (contra physicalism), which likewise necessitates the existence of God, it is important in such a complex debate to lay down my first principle in the proof(s) that now follows.

I am going to posit the mental, both minds (consciousness) and their content (percepts/phenomena, et al.) together as a single axiom.

Now before some cry foul and say that this is begging the question regarding the contention of the debate, keep in mind that the debate is not merely whether or not the mental exists, but whether it is physically reducible or not.

I am arguing that it is NOT physically reducible, but in regards the axiom, I am only arguing that it cannot be denied as existing in general without committing a performative contradiction. This is because this axiom is an a priori synthetic proposition.

Let me explain what is meant by this axiom being an a priori synthetic statement and the significance of this claim to my argument:

If one were to merely observe the behavior of humans in the external world, one would not be able to induce the existence of consciousness or the mental from it; all one would observe would be certain outward movements of human bodies. Sensory observation of others alone does not allow one to conclude that consciousness and its content exists (to say otherwise is a non-sequitur).

Nor is formal logic sufficient to arrive at a proof that the mental exists as independent of the physical. While it is necessary to reason logically about the existence of the mental, there is no set of starting premises from which the mental can be strictly deduced. Rather, any logical analysis of consciousness (the mental) and mental content (the phenomenal) already presupposes its existence.

External observation is not necessary to conclude the existence of such a mental reality, and logical analysis is not sufficient. Nonetheless, any thinking human knows that consciousness exists and that he is in fact thinking and aware. How can this be? It is so because of the fact that consciousness and conscious-content together make an a priori synthetic proposition in their formal affirmation. While it cannot be proved from more fundamental starting premises, it can be validated beyond possibility of refutation. Every attempt to refute a fundamental a priori synthetic proposition implicitly confirms its validity. This is so because every attempted refutation is itself a demonstration of the fact being denied.

The axiomatic quality of this statement (The mental exists) is demonstrated in that any argument made to its contrary is a performative contradiction. That is, in attempting to deny the actuality of the mental one must engaged in thought or some form of sensation to engage in the debate.

If consciousness (the mental) is denied, then the debate is over, for in that case I am not debating with anyone conscious, rather my opponent is nothing more significant than an unthinking rock or piece of wood and their words could then be dismissed as such with equal weight. Thus, Human Mentality Affirmed As Actual Is Confirmed As A Transcendental Necessity.

However, this alone does not and cannot resolve the debate at hand, but what is implied by such will below under the next heading.


2. THE IRREDUCIBILITY OF THE AXIOM OF HUMAN MENTALITY (Contra Physicalism)

Claim: The Axiom of Human Mentality is not physically reducible. (This claim is the crux of this entire debate).

The axiom above qualifies as my assertion of human mentality, and it cannot be reduced to what are commonly known as physical properties without a fallacy. This is because the subjective states which constitute the fundamental elements of conscious content (sensations/qualia) can only be related in correlation or sequence to what are affirmed as physical. Thus, to assert a causal relationship (which is necessary to establish reduction) would be fallacious in its very asserting (Either cum hoc ergo propter hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc, respectively).

Hence, the axiom cannot be reduced in terms of physical (third-person-access) properties because all such can only be demonstrated as occurring in relation to the axiom itself via correlation or sequence, since one cannot infer causal (reductive connection) to such properties (to say otherwise is fallacious), then the irreducibility of the axiom remains valid.

Thus, the existence of the mental remains as actual and it cannot be physically reduced (and is therefore different than the physical). Hence, Physicalism Is Refuted.

[If the assertion just made cannot be refuted, I win the debate given the terms agreed to, and will do so as a definitive victory].


3. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PHENOMENAL IDEALISM

Claim: All that is commonly called physical is reducible to the Axiom of Human Mentality.

The existence of the physical cannot be known apart from human experience, hence any assertion of the existence of a physical reality that is independent of the axiom's content must be established independent of using the axiom's content.

Since this is impossible (a performative contradiction), no reality can be said to exist independent of consciousness or an awareness of such content (qualitative states).

Hence, there is no conceivable mind-independent reality and the contrary claim is contradictory by definition. Phenomenal Idealism is Therefore True and Proven.


4. THE NECESSARY EXISTENCE OF THE TRINITARIAN GOD

Claim: That God exists necessarily and that God must necessarily be Trinitarian.

This argument is connected intimately with the aforementioned reasoning regarding the mental nature of reality.

The claim of this section shall be that the demands of plain reason require not only that God exists, but that He exists in a Trinitarian form necessarily. This implies that all other conceptions of God, if claiming him to be omnipotent, are self-contradictory if not also asserting Him to be Trinitarian. Furthermore, this proof establishes not merely some vague notion of deity as in other theistic proofs, but that the God of Christianity specifically is necessitated by plain reason and the axiom of human mentality.

What follows are some semi-formal categorical syllogisms (I am not being overly strict regarding propositional form, for the sake of easy-reading).

Syllogism One

P1: All Physical Reality is Conscious-Content.

[Established Previously Under Heading Three]

P2: All Conscious-Content is Supreme-Mind-Originating.

[Demonstrated Below]

C: All Physical Reality is Supreme Mind Originating.


Premise Two Demonstration: The physicalist or materialist assertion that a mind-independent reality might exist as the source of conscious content cannot be established because of the corollary to the old principle of reason know as, Ex Nihil, Nihil Fit. (out-of-nothing, nothing comes), the corollary being: Something cannot give what itself does not have.

Hence an unthinking, non-perceptible, who-knows-what (that some call matter) cannot be the source of conscious-content as held under the axiom, for an unthinking non-percept is not a mind and only a mind can have mental content.

A man cannot be the source of his own perceptions (as that would imply omniscience), hence, these perceptions must originate from some other mind. The objectivity presumed in human intelligibility necessitates (as a transcendental condition) that this mind be singular in essence as the source of all mental content (or else the laws of identity would become subjective or relative, which is impossible). This mind is called a Supreme Mind. This Supreme Mind, being the source of all mental content (knowledge) is therefore affirmed as being omniscient consistent with the definitions given in this thread.

Now, If the Supreme Mind is the source of all knowledge (mental content) and reality reduces to mental content, and all finite minds rely on such for both intelligibility and a meaningful (epistemologically) existence, this Supreme Mind as the source of such is therefore perfectly independent (contra mental content/reality and all finite minds which are dependent on Him). The Supreme Mind is therefore omnipotent; furthermore, that all space-time relations reduce to human mentality, and since such originates in the Supreme Mind, then this Supreme mind exists independently of, and in fact contains, all space-time relations. Hence, The Supreme Mind is also omnipresent. The Supreme Mind is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. The Supreme Mind is God. Therefore, God Exists.

Syllogism Two

P1: All Supreme Mind (God) is Self-Satisfaction-Having.

Corrolary to P1: All Self-Satisfaction-Having Is Independence-Having (See Maxim Below)

[Maxim: To Have Satisfaction Outside Of Oneself Is Inconsistent With Independence]

P2: All Self-Satisfaction-Having is Trinity-Necessitating (Trinitarian).

C: All Supreme Mind (God) is Trinitarian (Trinity-Necessitating).


Premise One Explanation:

As was argued earlier; to originate, or owe existence, to some source is to be dependent on that source. Since all things (minds and mental content) owe their existence to the Supreme Mind, it follows that all things are dependent upon this other Mind, the Supreme Mind called God.

This being the case, that which is the source of all dependency is not and cannot be regarded as dependent. To not be dependent is in fact to be independent. Since the Supreme Mind (God) is the source of all dependency, God is therefore perfectly independent (this was all proven above when discussing omnipotence).

Maxim and P1-Corrolary Explanation:

To have satisfaction outside of oneself is inconsistent with independence, for that would imply that one were dependent on something other than oneself for satisfaction. In the case of all finite beings, any object of thought or perception, as mental content, must necessarily come from God (the Supreme Mind), all human satisfaction is therefore clearly a case of dependency.

Since God is independent, he cannot be dependent on anything outside of Himself or other than Himself.

Thus, to be truly independent (as has been established) is to be self-satisfied (the corollary of P1).

Premise Two Explanation [The Psychological Argument For The Trinity]:

As was demonstrated above in the maxim and corollary to P1; the state of needing some object outside of oneself for satisfaction is a state of dependence, but God is only in an independent state. Since this is the case, God is never in need of some object outside of Himself for satisfaction; thus, God is His own object of satisfaction.

It must be kept in mind that it is impossible for any mind to comprehend pure-self (subject), for the thinking subject and object of thought are necessarily distinct (the subject-object distinction). That being said, an idea of one’s self (the object of thought) is still a reflection of one’s pure self (subject). Thus, it is true that an idea of one’s self is therefore the same and yet distinct from the pure self. Since this is the case, and He Himself must the Object of Satisfaction for God, it follows that God the Father’s idea of Himself (object of satisfaction) is the same and yet distinct from His pure self.

A wholly comprehensive idea (object of thought) of oneself, which reflects the pure-self (thinking subject), is necessarily a duplicate of the pure-self (thinking subject); however, God alone can have a wholly comprehensive idea of Himself due to his attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence (which have already been established). Thus, the Object of God’s self-satisfaction is fully God as God the Father (the thinking subject) is God, and is therefore the duplicated thinking subject of God, which shall now be referred to as the Son, being eternally generated and sharing a single essence. The Son is Therefore Eternally Begotten (Generated) of The Father.

Satisfaction in-and-of itself lacks any meaning apart from, and is therefore, in a sense, the same as the object of love or satisfaction, and yet this affection of satisfaction is distinct from the object of satisfaction (love) itself, in that love or satisfaction is not inseparably related to any particular object of love or satisfaction by reason of necessity. Hence, satisfaction or love is the same as, and yet distinct from, the object of love or satisfaction itself.

Since the Father and The Son share the same essence of independence which necessitates perfect self-satisfaction that can only be accomplished via having a perfect object of such, the Father and the Son (as the perfect thinking object of the Father’s thought) must share, by logical necessity, a mutual satisfaction (love) with each other, as each is the object of the other’s satisfaction. The mutual Love shared between the Father and the Son is the same, and yet distinct, from themselves (as was discussed in the previous paragraph); Thus, the Love of God is fully God as God the Father is God and God the Son is God, for to be the same as God is to share His essentia, but to be distinct is to be distinct in substantia or personae. The Love of God is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is Eternally Proceeding from the Father and The Son.

[Note: The Holy Spirit is often referred to as the love of God in Scripture as well]

Thus, the Conclusion Follows:

The Supreme Mind (God) is Trinitarian (Trinity Necessitating).

God Therefore Exists In Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.


CONCLUSION OF POST:

If Sensation (e.g. redness etc.); Then Trinity.

This is my position and this now concludes my first post of eight for this debate.